Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the dis

MrIntelligentDesign said:
Here is my initial arguments. I've written everything in my science books in Amazon but I promise that I will help you understand why you are so wrong about intelligence.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
Click to expand...
please give links to your books on amazon. i want to read all the justified remarks.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
The most hilarious thing is that you claimed that I am wrong and yet you don't have any clue of intelligence!

That is hilarious! LOL!
Click to expand...
except i have a four digit i.q.
and a career as a government theoretical scientist.
can you say the same, or is your mental meds out of inventory ?
i'm going with mental meds lacking.

again,
OMFG pathetically hilarious.
:) shakes head.
 
And here are my science books:

http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1[/QUOTE]
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Here are my videos inYouTube:


And here are my science books:

http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
Click to expand...
first reveiew from the first book on that link,
Top Customer Reviews
Almost incomprehensible, written by a semi-literate buffoon
By Jack Baxter on May 8, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition5 of 5 people found this review helpful
Although the author tortures the English language, he unfortunately does not force it to reveal anything.

"Have you think about these before opening the book?"
Such was one of the sentences in the very first paragraph of this book, and it's a fairly accurate indicator of what's to come.
Postrado continues that proud creationist tradition of putting forth his arguments, completely ignoring the highly critical responses and refutations and then declaring his arguments unbeaten.
The grammar in this book is terrible, with syntax so distorted that it would make anybody with a decent grip on the language cringe, such as labelling Michael J Behe "one proponents of Intelligent Design".
The arguments are even worse, such as "if intelligence is dead, it will force us to predict that since human could produce PC, a stone could produce a PC too, since the two will just be using the same "natural processes", as the obvious pattern in/of nature." Just a few pages in and I have already run out of fingers with which to count the grammatical errors.
"for four years span, I did not stop thinking about the topic of 'intelligence' for almost every day"
"This was the story of my quest of the discovery of intelligence that will surely turn the scientific world upside down."
Postrado refers to information found online as "in the internet".
He also spends pages and pages devoted to different definitions of 'intelligence' that he copied from the dictionary or various textbooks, presumably to pad it out a bit more. How many definitions he uses I can't rightly tell you, as I gave up
again, justified.

second review.
... care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started
By asix on May 13, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition3 of 3 people found this review helpful
Reading this "book"(if you care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started. This should be sold along side toilet paper, since they serve the same purpose.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Here is my initial arguments. I've written everything in my science books in Amazon but I promise that I will help you understand why you are so wrong about intelligence.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken in your primary assumption, that science has no way of determining the difference between intelligently designed things and natural things. Natural things have qualities that one would not include in an intelligent design, specifically, all natural (evolved) things can only come from incremental changes of previous forms, so it's solutions to problems are often less than ideal. An example of this is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. An intelligent designer can make leaps of intuition that are not possible in evolved things, like rerouting the nerve so it doesn't have to loop around the heart and back. In one generation, an intelligent designer can redesign from the ground up. For instance, it would not make sense to build an eye socket into a fish that has no functioning sight. But this makes sense if you realize that blind cave fish had to evolve from sighted fish.

In your example, what if I replace the secretary's brain with the roll of a dice. You are brought a random number of objects in response to your request. According to your protocol, that's also intelligent.
 
Oh, wonderful.
The crank gets himself banned from a different science site - mostly for peddling crap that he can't support and repeating the same tired claims over and over again - so he comes here and pushes the same nonsense.
Without having listened to, or addressed, previous objections.
Yet another delusional nutcase.
 
book three:
is also free.

Top Customer Reviews
A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar.
By Randall R Young on January 17, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase 30 of 30 people found this review helpful
Dear Reader,

If you are unfortunate enough to have invested $3.50 in this e-book, hoping to receive some sort of information or knowledge, let me first express my sincerest condolences.

To begin with, let me just say that I am not very comfortable being the first to post a review of this text. It occurs to me that the very best thing that could happen to crackpot works like this is that they be totally ignored. I am praying that nobody gets the idea from the bare existence of my review that this book is actually WORTHY of the time it took me to write this. My motivation for taking this time was simply that Mr. Postrado is flouting Amazon's discussion forum rules, by hawking this miserable tripe.

Secondly, a note of caution seems to be in order: If you take advantage of Amazon's previewing "look inside this book" function, as luck would have it, the content you are allowed to view is limited to a small part of the beginning of the book which contains largely extended quotes from other authors, as background. These quotes are actually readable in a way the corpus of the rest of the book is not, due to the fact that their origin is not Mr. Postrado's wonderfully confused mind. Thus, I suppose it is conceivable that one might read some of these quotes and get the impression that the topics covered might turn out to be interesting, once Postrado actually gets rolling.

i can continue with more.
:) shakes head.
 
krash661 said:
book three:
is also free.

Top Customer Reviews
A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar.
By Randall R Young on January 17, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase 30 of 30 people found this review helpful
Dear Reader,

If you are unfortunate enough to have invested $3.50 in this e-book, hoping to receive some sort of information or knowledge, let me first express my sincerest condolences.

To begin with, let me just say that I am not very comfortable being the first to post a review of this text. It occurs to me that the very best thing that could happen to crackpot works like this is that they be totally ignored. I am praying that nobody gets the idea from the bare existence of my review that this book is actually WORTHY of the time it took me to write this. My motivation for taking this time was simply that Mr. Postrado is flouting Amazon's discussion forum rules, by hawking this miserable tripe.

Secondly, a note of caution seems to be in order: If you take advantage of Amazon's previewing "look inside this book" function, as luck would have it, the content you are allowed to view is limited to a small part of the beginning of the book which contains largely extended quotes from other authors, as background. These quotes are actually readable in a way the corpus of the rest of the book is not, due to the fact that their origin is not Mr. Postrado's wonderfully confused mind. Thus, I suppose it is conceivable that one might read some of these quotes and get the impression that the topics covered might turn out to be interesting, once Postrado actually gets rolling.

i can continue with more.
:) shakes head.
Click to expand...
In real science, I don't trust those reviewers that have no clue on the real intelligence. Even the religious freaks and fanatics can do it and they do it many times. Thus,I don't care about those reviewers. But if Kenneth Miller will say after I debated him, then, I will probably agree.

But no, I don't trust those goons...
 
Guys, I have to work now since I have life too and family. I think the info that I've shared you is enough. I will be back and I want you to look at some of my books and videos and let us talk science and see who is deluded.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
In real science, I don't trust those reviewers that have no clue on the real intelligence. Even the religious freaks and fanatics can do it and they do it many times. Thus,I don't care about those reviewers. But if Kenneth Miller will say after I debated him, then, I will probably agree.

But no, I don't trust those goons...
Click to expand...
except you're completely clueless as to what "real science" is.
:) shrugs.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Hi, hello. I am new here.

Let me introduce to you myself.

I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...
Click to expand...

Oh Christ, not you again.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.
Click to expand...
MrIntelligentDesign said:
If I lose, I will delete all my science books in Amazon and videos in YouTube and ask forgiveness to all of you..
But if you lose, you will support me and ask the Nobel prize committee about my name and new discoveries..
Are you willing to do it for science or are you afraid?
Click to expand...

The God said:
I am quite sure that Sweetpea is either Paddoboy, or a pliant friend planted by him, and I am never wrong.
Click to expand...


Now are those two posters the greatest examples of delusions of grandeur or not? :D
The mind boggles in the fact that we have such delusionals loose in this world, although on the bright side, at least we appear to be containing them on this forum...
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Guys, I have to work now since I have life too and family. I think the info that I've shared you is enough. I will be back and I want you to look at some of my books and videos and let us talk science and see who is deluded.
Click to expand...

No thanks, I think we've already worked that out.
 
spidergoat said:
I'm reasonably confident there is no evidence for god, and yes, I can defend that position in a debate.
Click to expand...
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Good, let us fight. But why are you talking about god? Are you using religion in science?
Click to expand...
intelligent design is not a science regardless what you think. Are you denying that the existence of God is a postulate of intelligent design. Actually don't bother to answer that since I'm going to lobby for the removal of this thread from the science and math section of the forum. If somebody decides to debate with you please do it in the appropriate section of the forum.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oh, wonderful.
The crank gets himself banned from a different science site - mostly for peddling crap that he can't support and repeating the same tired claims over and over again - so he comes here and pushes the same nonsense.
Without having listened to, or addressed, previous objections.
Yet another delusional nutcase.
Click to expand...
The only thing interesting about this thread is whether it will be allowed to run its course entirely in the science and math section of the forum. A good way to moderate your own screen is to put the thread originator on ignore.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top